Gerald Stanley trial in the death of Colten Boushie

This is what I meant by questions that could be asked. I would have thought that the Stanleys would have called the police, as soon as they realized what was happening. Is there no 911 service available? and wouldn't the police have prioritized a situation such as this, and arrive as soon as possible. Maybe that was the original intent of the son, when he says he went to the house to get his keys. And did anyone have a cell phone? So there are a lot of questions that could be asked, and maybe they were asked. But this kind of information has not been published in the media, as far as I know. Yes, there are a lot of questions surrounding this case. Oh, and here's another thought to ponder. Gerald Stanley says he fired those shots in the air, but the two other men, who were running away, testified that they felt the bullets whizzing past them. And another question, just where and when did the RCMP pick up those other people who were involved?

This is what I meant by questions that could be asked. I would have thought that the Stanleys would have called the police, as soon as they realized what was happening. Is there no 911 service available? and wouldn't the police have prioritized a situation such as this, and arrive as soon as possible.

Not to derail this thread further because there is a thread about the issue of crime in rural areas in the regional sections, but you're talking about a small number of officers policing a large geographic area that was sparsely populated. Whether the police were called via 911 or another way, they can still take hours to show up to even the most serious calls, especially if they have to call in off-duty officers. Not to mention that many RCMP detachments are struggling to staff themselves to the full compliment of officers they actually need.

The Stanley farm is located near Biggar, SK, which has an RCMP detachment. At least 10 police officers were on hand at the Red Pheasant Reserve to inform Debbie Baptiste that her son was killed, while searching her house for whatever. I think they waited until they could get more reinforcements from North Battleford, and Saskatoon, which is why they showed up around 10 pm, while the shooting took place at the Stanley farm at around 6 pm.

And the word on the street which is not substantiated in any way is that the aboriginal jurors who were rejected had a major bias. There were reports of some wearing "Justice for Colton" shirts and that they were not rejected simply because they were aboriginal.

That is a bold claim. Is there a source for it? I have heard a lot of things, but not that one.

I just got a response from someone at SCAR who was at the jury selection. This rumour is false.

If you happen to hear it again, or run into anyone who said it to you, please set them straight. Thanks.

honestly, i think people will always have a hard time sending someone to jail when they are set upon in their own home by someone with bad intentions. It's almost unreasonable to expect a regular civilian to react "reasonably" in that scenario, given it's probably the scariest thing that will ever happen to them, and they had no hand in instigating it.

for me to believe a senior citizen with no prior history of violence, criminality or anything just decided to become a cold blooded murderer and point-blank someone in the head is actually more preposterous than the idea that in the midst of the chaos (that he had no hand in starting) he shot someone by accident, given the evidence.

I agree that in any situation such as this, it is very difficult to ask reasonably. However, this man went into his shed and loaded a gun. This seems a very deliberate action.

I wonder what the outcome would have been if he and his son had just gone inside and called the police. But he chose not to do that. My belief is that he brought more danger into this situation by his actions. They might not have instigated this situation, but they sure escalated it.

And I still fail in understanding why some people think that protection of property is more important than someone’s life.

see i don't think too many credible people are arguing it ok to shoot someone for defense of property, but let's be honest--when the robbers show up at 5pm you can assume they know the people are home and that is frankly pretty scary stuff. That becomes life threatening potentially. and in that situation, i don't think it's fair to ask the person being attacked to be thinking about the intruders safety, in that situation people go into survival mode and get really scared.

that's why i find the misfire/accident credible to a point. really, unless they could show the guy had some history of violence or aggression, racism, pulling out guns on people i just don't see some old guy turning into a cold blooded killer, the accident actually seems like a likely outcome in this case.

but if it was a case of he heard some robbers in the middle of the night and shot one as they were running away in the back that's a whole different story, those people always get put in jail if they do that(or usually at least).

Milo, ask yourself this one question. Let's flip this entire scenario around and assume it was white kids who trespassed on a Frist Nations reserve. Let's then assume that someone from this reserve got a gun and shot and killed one of these kids. What do you think would have happened? Do you think the RCMP would allow critical evidence to get washed away in the rain? Do you think the RCMP would go over to the victim's parents house and search it while telling them that their kid was dead? Do you think a jury would have convicted or acquited this man?

Remember, this is the Prairies we are talking about. To help you out in answering that question, look upthread to the information posted about the Melfort rape.

You don't take out a gun unless you intend to use it in some way. An empty gun, as Stanley claims to believe, would have been useless to defend himself. Given the facts of the case, he is at least guilty of some form of criminal negligence, possibly manslaughter.

honestly, i think people will always have a hard time sending someone to jail when they are set upon in their own home by someone with bad intentions. It's almost unreasonable to expect a regular civilian to react "reasonably" in that scenario, given it's probably the scariest thing that will ever happen to them, and they had no hand in instigating it.

for me to believe a senior citizen with no prior history of violence, criminality or anything just decided to become a cold blooded murderer and point-blank someone in the head is actually more preposterous than the idea that in the midst of the chaos (that he had no hand in starting) he shot someone by accident, given the evidence.

Okay, so let's break this down:

"...set upon in their own home by someone with bad intentions." Well, the only part of that we know for sure is that the Stanley family was at home. We don't know that they were "set upon". If the car had been full of people they knew, would you use that phrasing? Also, there's no indication that they were pursued by the individuals in the car - wouldn't that be a necessary part of "setting upon" someone? In fact, Stanley's son testified the HE pursued THEM, smashing their windshield with a hammer. And then there's the intentions. That there were bad intentions involved is a moot point. You can't know their intentions. FWIW, they did claim to have difficulty with a tire, and the evidence shows that this was the case. So you're using loaded language larded with assumption right out of the gate.

"... a senior citizen..." No, he's not. He's in his 50s. Middle aged, and his son was also there, so this is not the case of some poor little old man scared out of his wits. He also had several firearms handy - which indicates that he wasn't the most reasonable person to begin with.

"...with no prior history of violence, criminality or anything..." Okay, so serious question: Somebody punches me in the face. He's never, to our knowledge, ever popped anybody in the kisser before, and claims I startled him. Should he be arrested for assault? We can claim he was provoked and has no history of violence, so he should be let off - by your logic, anyway. Fun Fact: you don't have to have a recorded history of violence to be guilty of a violent act. Furthermore, you don't have any idea whether Stanley has been violent in the past, only that he was never convicted of an offence. This point is moot and again, you've made some massive assumptions here.

"...just decided to become a cold blooded murderer and point-blank someone in the head..." If it was cold-blooded murder, it would have been a first degree murder charge. It wasn't. You're constructing a straw man here. Nobody has made that argument. What appears to have happened is the guy was scared, agitated and likely very pissed off and started shooting at people. One of them died - and there is no dispute that it was point blank and that Stanley fired the shot. At the very least, negligent handling of a firearm would have been manslaughter (a finding that there was no intent to kill).

"...he shot someone by accident, given the evidence." Actually, the evidence does not support that conclusion. See the firearms expert testimony. The jury ignored it in their verdict.

I find it so incredibly disheartening that in this thread there is such persistence of dog whistle racism and apologies for murder. How do we find our way to reconciliation while even a progressive board does this?

I started this thread feeling ashamed of my province of origin, and I find myself feeling utterly hopeless about the whole damned country now.

aristotle: yes the RCMP screwed up with the car and the family, that's for damn sure and the outrage there is warranted. There's a chance that different evidence coud lead to a new perspective, but given they had the gunshot evidence from the body, i don't think the defense would change much.

I guess my point is if the ethnicity was reversed and the homeowner was found guilty, THAT would be an example of racsism/unfairness and people should be outraged, but not so if the homeowner is found innocent, but that's a totally different scenario.

timebandit: what i mean by set upon is: a robber would assume people are home and aware at 5 (compared to at 2am under darkness) which tells the homeowner "these people are ready to confront me" since they're not concerned with being covert. that gets scary real fast. if they needed "help" they would knock on the door (we know they were there to steal though, they admitted that so that's being disengenious). At that point, any reasonable person would not assume "good intentions" and for all the farmer knows these people are armed (most criminals are) so reaching for a gun or a weapon in that stuation doesn't strike me as unreasonable for a civilian who is scared.

ok 50's...but you're telling me you don't think he was scared? his adrenaline was redlining, his heart was beating super fast. after he shot the warning shots he was pretty much deaf. i mean it's not the movies. Think of sexual assault survivors: fight, flight or freeze...violent situtations cause people to go into that mode pretty easy they're not trained to deal with those kinds of things, even people with years of training still break down to surival mode.

my point about his prior history: just saying it would go a long way to convincing the jury he was capable of shooting someone in that way--in cold blood point blank. i think it's a reasonable thing to inquire about before we assume the farmer is a murderer. most psychpaths have a history. Given it's a small town and you know the crown looked into this, it's fair to assume if there was something to find they'd have found it. as for your example: if you came barging onto their private yard in an agressive posture to commit a crime i don't think anyone would mind if they punched that you because they were scared/startled. but if you chased them down after, yes that would be assault. and no, they could not claim the same thing in public. but this isn't about someone being caught off guard innocently: lets at least use comparable examples.

i'd argue there is evidence: the three firearms "experts" who noted the hang fire bulge on the casing-consistent with the defence's claim. there's no way stanley could have known about that in advance...a pretty big and impossible coincidence. there were no holes in his testimony to police or in court that found he was making anything up in the many times he recalled the events, including his famiy interiewed seperately.

I will admit--it's possible they got it wrong and he meant to kill someone. I just think it's unlikely and given all the points im raising at least doesn't amount to a horrible miscarriage of justice like what's being alleged...it's not so cut and dry the way people are making out, it's not a police sniper killing dudley george that's for sure.

tbh honest, i think the reaction that diseartens you is normal in that in a case where an innocent person in confronted in/around their home and hurts the intruders most people don't have sympathy for the intruder becuase they can only put themselves in the shoes of the homeowner. problem here is people are trying to excuse/minimize the actions of the perpetrators as bearing any responsibility for the chaos (like repeating the idea they were only looking for help)...i don't think there's any racial claims there or apologies for murder, i don't think it's murder. if i did, i woudn't be defending the farmer. i think most people on "the left" seem to have ideological blinders on. i mean look at the robert falcon ouelettes statement and he's from that same FN, that seems to be a sensible view of this. it's a tragedy, not a murder.

Milo your racism is oozing out of your posts. Stanley and his son are farmers and were all ready up and about doing chores when the vehicle pulled into their driveway. They live on a farm not in the city, the driveway to their house is very long and the "intruders" were nowhere near the man's house let alone breaking into it. Him and his son confronted a car full of people they didn't know prior to communicating with them. One of them broke the windshield of the car and the other shot a man at point blank range. This asshole waved a gun around with reckless disregard for the life of people he did not know and had done no violence to him or his family. Settler Stanley was not afraid for his live he just hates "fucking indians". When the gun went off in stead of acknowledging that he had acted recklessly he made up a well crafted story to be able to plead a defence of accident. If the gun had merely misfired it would still have been manslaughter because if you point a gun at someone and it goes off it is manslughter whether or not you say your finger slipped. You are held to the natural consequences of the act of pointing a loaded firearm at a human being. That is why he had to add in the fact that he fired the gun in the air and checked to see if there were any bullets left. Strangely enough when he checked the gun the bullet was hiding on the chamber just waiting to go off when he pointed a gun at a human being who was not threatening him. IMO he is a racist murderer. If the car had been full of good old white boys he would not have pulled out a gun and started to wave it around and his son would not have broken the windshield.

Milo, I agree that the issue of crime in rural areas is another important aspect of this case. That's why I started a thread in the Manitoba/Saskatchewan forum so that that particular topic could have a home and this thread could stay on track.

It's the pattern that's confusing. If it was just the one case, your argument might have some water. People don't hold rallies right after a particular verdict on the basis of one particular shooting where a guy gets acquitted. That takes a long time for mistrust to get to that point. I'll also note what krop said immediately before my post and that not only is what Boushie and his friends going onto Stanley's farm very common in rural Saskatchewan, but if it's white kids doing that it is viewed much differently. There is also an element, as has been pointed out, that the farmers are "taming the wild frontier" by putting Native people in their place. Recall the history of the Prairies and that's exactly what the government did.

And this has other scary implications as well. In response to the issue of night hunting in rural Manitoba, Premier Brian Pallister suggested that "young Indigenous men" were trying to start a "race war." It is very problematic for a public figure to say that kind of thing, and he said this after the Boushie shooting. Why would he feel free to callously fan racial tensions like that? Thankfully the remarks were so outrageous that even land owners in rural Manitoba who felt threatened by the hunting practice called out Pallister's terminology, but the potential to do damage is very great.

I'm guessing from the "204" in your name that you have at least some personal connection to Manitoba? I'm from Brandon originally. Trust me, racism is a thing in this province and in this general region of the country. Look around.

kropotkin: racism? ok it seems you're obviously just looking to sling mud as opposed to talking normally about this.

aristotle: i agree but i do think it's unfair to put that larger history at the feet of this farmer in this case and obviously it would be unfair to let that influence a court case. but i think that's what the protesters are doing here. they live that history everyday right? i'm not suprised they view it that way, but that being said most of the protesters (or the cbc/media) are having a hard time even admitting the suv wasn't stopping for help with a flat, so it seems they're not being really honest about what happened in this case.

really what people should be angry about is the carelessness and apparent callousness of the RCMP--that's something that can be changed if people focused on it and ultimately the source of the problem and something that we can all agree needs to change right now!

just a little correction though timebandit, pallisters remarks were much earlier (this summer i think?) and yes they are disgusting. thanks for responding thoughtfully :)

Milo is making quite reasonable arguments. I don't know that they necessarily should have combined to create reasonable doubt in this case, but I think accusing him/her of racism is entirely unproductive.

An interesting blog post about the ethical duties of juries. I don't agree with the suggestion that jurors should be told that they can occasionally act as the "conscience" in a way to actually subvert the law, but still thought-provoking.

You know what is fair, milo204? About a month ago someone here got hit by a car and the person with her threw a rock and hit it. That guy was charged, despite the fact the driver was completely in the wrong, and initiated the situation.

No one here is saying they didn't try to take that ATV. We are saying that none of that is an excuse to walk up and shoot someone who is doing nothing in the back of the head. Or take a hammer to a car windshield either (which seems to be at least as serious as that attempted theft), but we aren't even talking about that.

Yet there is a running narrative in this thread which is supposed to focus on Indigenous perspectives downplaying that murder, downplaying the fact that Indigenous people were refused a spot on that jury because of their race, ignoring the testimony of those who were there, discrediting them because they had been drinking, assuming the worst about them.

And claims about stories of prospective jurors displaying bias, also untrue, and bringing up theoretical arguments about reverse discrimination to imply that keeping Indigenous people off juries because of their race isn't a problem.

And most recently (in the other thread) a claim that because the SUV contained a bent rifle with no stock that nobody picked up that they were there to use deadly force.

And that the victim was trying to drive the car away when there is no evidence that is true (again, something which doesn't excuse murder, but is yet another thing that seems intended to imply Stanley was justified in shooting him).

And at the same time accepting everything Gerald Stanley and his son said as true, even though a great deal of it is contradictory, and some is impossible, and makes absolutely no sense at all. And there is an assumption that someone coming on his property to steal something is justification for murder.

And saying nothing about the fact Stanley wasn't even convicted of manslaughter, despite pointing a gun at the back of someone's head, claiming (and most certainly lying) he didn't know there was a bullet in the chamber, and pulling the trigger.

Yet pointing out these biases (again, in a forum that is supposed to be about Indigenous perspectives, not why it is okay to shoot people) is gross. It's just mudslinging. It's not talking normally.

Milo, ask yourself this one question. Let's flip this entire scenario around and assume it was white kids who trespassed on a Frist Nations reserve.

...You don't take out a gun unless you intend to use it in some way. An empty gun, as Stanley claims to believe, would have been useless to defend himself. Given the facts of the case, he is at least guilty of some form of criminal negligence, possibly manslaughter.

This was not a case of four innocent kids who went swimming, got a flat tire, stopped for help, and got shot.

This is not a cause of four fairly innocent kids who went for a swim, got drunk, tried to steal a car for a joy ride, and got shot.

Like you said "You don't take out a gun unless you intend to use it in some way." Colton loaded his gun and took it with him to go swimming and drinking. Why would anyone take a loaded gun to swim and drink? He had it on his lap.

After Colten's body fell out of the car, both Sheldon and Ms. Stanley say they saw the barrel of a .22 calibre bolt-action rifle lying near his body, with the stock and trigger missing. An officer said there appeared to be a live round in the chamber. There were no spent casings in the area. The police theory laid out in the ITO seems to be that the group had attempted to break into a vehicle on a neighbouring farm, where residents reported finding a broken rifle stock. The residents told police it appeared the stock broke when someone tried to force their way into a locked truck.

By your logic it appears Colton intended to kill someone after his swim but broke his gun.

Did Colton deserve to die for what he did? Absolutely not. Was Gerald Stanley justified in feeling enough fear to run for his gun? Yes. The behavior of the men and women, not kids, was threatening to any sane person. Did that justify killing Colton? Absolutely not but reading the accounts it is very believable to me that the gun went off accidently whether it was a hangfire or otherwise. Given that the man he shot was holding a gun (even though he didn't know it) it seems Stanley's assessment of the situation was correct.

I don't believe Colton intended to kill anyone. I do believe Colton was drunk and intended to frighten and intimidate anyone who tried to stop him and his friends from stealing whatever they came across that he wanted. It would be quite natural to assume people on a farm might have guns. Instead of being frightened by the thought he came prepared for a gun fight.

After Colton was shot the two women attacked Leesa Stanley.

These are pretty damn tough "kids" that drive around with a loaded gun and instead of being shocked and terrified at seeing someone shot in the head their first instinct was physically attack a woman who was zero threat to them. If Stanley didn't have a gun do you think they would have stopped?

The Stanleys were right to consider the men and women who decided to rob him in broad daylight on an occupied farm were dangerous people.

On both sides the guns were intended to intimidate. On the Stanley's side, in their defence, on the Boushie side to stop anyone who might object to his stealing from them in broad daylight.

If police in Montreal went to the home of someone who was shot in the commission of a crime while they were armed with a gun of any sort I would expect them to arrive at that person's home with 20 cop cars, the street closed off, people told to stay indoors, bullet proof vests and guns drawn for officers approaching the house.

I don't see it as unusual that they showed up at Colton's home in numbers and searched the place. He wasn't an innocent teen bystander who got shot. He was a man who got shot in the commission of a crime who had a loaded gun even if he had broken it during the commission of a previous crime that afternoon.

You provided a quote from a Globe and Mail article about the police ITO: "An officer said there appeared to be live round in the chamber." Was there or wasn't there? There is so much that can be questioned in this whole case.

Everyone is lying here. What I find really fascinating (in a horrified, just-discovered-maggots-on-a-dead-bird kind of way) is how the emphasis has been on the intent of the victims and the language used to describe the killer - "innocent", described as believable and credible, "scared". You guys... This is dogwhistle racism. The assumptions are astounding and only supported if you heavily cherrypick what's been reported.

Do you think the 4 people who went to the Stanley farm felt justified invading a white settler farm on indigenous lands to take what they wanted?

How many times does it need to be repeated that that is no justification for killing someone?

And in fact if Stanley had used that argument instead of accident there would have been unquestionable evidence of murder.

Though perhaps even that might not have been enough to secure a guilty verdict, given the jury.

I have suggested this already, but if this is just going to be the babble court report this thread really should be moved elsewhere. Right now all this is accomplishing is getting in the way of discussing the systemic racism at the heart of this incident, and the reaction to it.

Regina's Archbishop Don Bolen said he doesn't think the verdict will have a direct impact on reconciliation efforts, but that the case illuminated systemic issues in society.

"I don't think there's a direct impact. I think what's more important right now, is that this case and the verdict have shone a light on the systemic problems that we have in Saskatchewan and in other parts of Canada as well," Bolen said.

"The racism that has come out on all quarters, on the other side of the trial, outside of the trial itself, point us to the need to work on relations with our Indigenous people and to learn to walk in solidarity."

You provided a quote from a Globe and Mail article about the police ITO: "An officer said there appeared to be live round in the chamber." Was there or wasn't there? There is so much that can be questioned in this whole case.

I also wonder what did you mean by your last question in #175?

Even if there wasn't it's not normal to drive up to someone's home with a gun in your lap loaded or otherwise unless you intend to threaten violence. I wouldn't bring a gun with me to go swimming or to drink. If I had a gun, even a black water gun, and I drove up to someone's farmhouse for help with a flat tire, it would be in the trunk or under the seat.

Do you think the 4 people who went to the Stanley farm felt justified invading a white settler farm on indigenous lands to take what they wanted?

I didn't "mean" anything by it. It is a straightforward honest question. Actions don't always lead to intended consequences and the manner in which crimes are committed is important. I don't think anyone including the Stanleys are innocent but I don't think it was murder or manslaughter either although I don't know the formal definitions. I'm saying as a lay person they were all guilty. Together their behaviors added up to a death but it could just as easily been one of the white people on one of the farms that died.

Everything happened very fast I'm sure and that played into what happened. The son, Sheldon hit the windshield with a hammer and the father kicked out a tail light. I don't think they intended to murder anyone but I don't buy their excuses on that. I think they intended to apprehend them nothing more. The gun was intended to intimidate them into compliance.

I don't think the 4 adults were hardened criminals. I do think they felt entitled to go on any farm they pleased and to take whatever they wanted. I don't think they had any intention of entering the house or attacking anyone. Loaded or not the gun was to intimidate. They probably intended to sell whatever they got for whatever they could get to someone who has connections to a chop shop. Or maybe send it to a relative in another community. They were not there due to an unexpected flat tire on an afternoon of swimming. That's a lie.

So we have two parties using guns to intimidate. Gerald Stanley didn't know that Boushie had a gun. He had no reason to shoot him. The vehicle didn't have a flat at that point it was running on the rim and the windshield was badly damaged enough to make it difficult to drive. It had already hit one of his other vehicles. It makes sense to me that at that point he reached in to turn off the engine. That would be the responsible thing to do in such a situation. He still had the gun in his hand and it went off. I don't believe he shot Colton deliberately.

After someone dies the most important topic should be how to prevent it from happening again. I don't think any questions are out of order.

The battle is becoming increasingly militant. I don't fault warriors for being armed at barricades to protect their lands. Morally that falls under "protecting your property" in my book. The people responsible for violence is anyone approaching the barricade intending to use force.

I don't agree with non-indigenous people arming themselves to block the pipeline at Burnaby. I think that is because we have a democractic system for dealing with such issues and peaceful protest is very effective if enough people sign on. Peaceful protest hasn't done much for indigenous people. The government tends to just literally plough through. Sometimes the threat of violence is the only strategy that works.

I'm not victim blaming. I hold our government responsible. There is no doubt in my mind that racism against indigenous people led directly to this event happening but not Stanley's racism. The racism that has led to indigenous people being disrespected and communities damaged by residencial schools and countless other attempts to assimilate them or move them to less inconvenient locals when they were in the way of development. Making deals so exploitative that they don't hold up in court. Contaminating drinking water then acting like it is being so decent to clean it. The list goes on and on, big sins and small.

To reduce this event to an individual being racist and jury selection being racist misses the larger picture of what led to the events in question. From what I have read there is a lot of racism in Manitoba. I am going to guess Saskachewan isn't far off. There are criminal numbers of indigenous children placed in foster care which is often little better than residential schools.

Boushie shouldn't have paid for this with his life. It's still not right to use Gerald Stanley as an example unless you really believe that he deliberately shot Colton in the head using his last bullet. And what, covering it up by simultaneously trying to turn off the vehicle? I think he was trying to turn the vehicle off to prevent further damage to his property or family and that he intended to apprehend the ones he "caught" that tried to steal from him and vandalize his property and threaten the safety of his family with reckless driving. I think he was angry. I don't think he deliberately killed Colton. I think if four white people behaved the same way under the same circumstances the outcome would have been the same.

Bolen also said he thinks many people have missed the bigger picture when commenting on the verdict.

"I think many commentaries on this case have lost the larger story. And what is that larger story? It's a history of colonization, of residential schools where our Indigenous people have been marginalized," he said.

"Our Indigenous friends are always telling us that reconciliation requires justice, is built on justice."

Bolen said that solidarity didn't mean commenting directly on the verdict, but instead he said it means working toward the "larger picture of the pursuit of justice."

---

So what can we do in solidarity with the larger pursuit of justice and reconciliation? If, as the archibishop suggests, arguing with people who think the verdict was reasonable is "missing the larger picture".

Smith and Timebandit: I would very much like to understand what you and other babblers mean, concretely, when you say systemic racism. Calling other babblers dogwhistling racists for not seeing the circumstances of this particular incident the same way you do is, in my view, getting in the way of "discussing the systemic racism at the heart of this incident, and the reaction to it".

Regarding other concrete actions we could take in solidarity, consider the actions of Miranda Dyke (and the reaction to it) here:

Smith and Timebandit: I would very much like to understand what you and other babblers mean, concretely, when you say systemic racism. Calling other babblers dogwhistling racists for not seeing the circumstances of this particular incident the same way you do is, in my view, getting in the way of "discussing the systemic racism at the heart of this incident, and the reaction to it".

I have already given concrete examples at least twice. Do you really need me to repeat it again?

And Pondering, you honestly think the same thing would have happened to four young white people? And that the verdict would have been the same?

I'm pretty sure in the case of a white kid the cops wouldn't have barged in on his mother with their guns drawn, and accused her of being drunk as a way of telling her her son had been shot dead.

You are ABSOLUTELY BLAMING THE VICTIM, Pondering. Adding a disclaimer after doing just that doesn't negate it.

Boushie did not use a gun to intimidate anyone. Stanley himself said that he did not see the firearm - a firearm that was disabled at the time. It was not fireable.

If you don't know what you're talking about re: what was tesitifed to and what legal definitions are, I suggest that you do some looking up instead of talking out your lily-white ass, then come back when you can add something more substantive and informed.

timebandit, you mention blaming the victim: when we talk about victims in a setting other than this, we tend to think of the victim as being the person put in a threatening situation against their will. When the military invades some place, we hold them responsible for all the horrors that result (as does the UN). When there's a sexual assault, we don't judge how the person reacts, even if it "rationally" doesn't seem to make sense. we understand that when people create chaos, even if they don't intend to they have to bear responsibility to an extent for what results from that chaos, including fatal accidents.

i guess i'm looking at it from that perspective. even from the moment they were confronted verbally, if they would have just left (or not gone in the first place) everyone is still alive. but they didn't. they stayed long enough for stanley to go into a shed, grab a gun, fire warning shots, kick a tail light, hit the windsheild then they drove around more and not away from the property but further onto it where they crashed. if they had just run away, no one gets hurt--or if they did it's clearly a murder/manslaughter. don't the intruders bear that responsibility? that's the essence of a case like this: has the threat/chaos ended? if not, as in this case, i just can't fathom putting someone in jail for making a split second mistake...to me that is the worst form of "blaming the victim"

i also feel like if this convo was in real life face to face we'd all find some common ground a lot easier in a back and forth convo as opposed to writing essays.

You are ABSOLUTELY BLAMING THE VICTIM, Pondering. Adding a disclaimer after doing just that doesn't negate it.

Boushie did not use a gun to intimidate anyone. Stanley himself said that he did not see the firearm - a firearm that was disabled at the time. It was not fireable.

I already said that Gerald didn't know Boushie had a gun until after he was shot and fell out of the vehicle. That is part of the reason I don't believe that Gerald killed him deliberately. If he had intended to do that he would not have shot in the air first he would have aimed not tried to turn off the car at the same time. he wouldn't have had to get that close to the car. I think his intention was to hold the ones that didn't get away for the cops. The gun was for intimidation. I think that is more believable than assuming Gerald decided to murder him on the spot.

The story they presented, that they were out swimming, got a flat, and stopped for help is an obvious lie. He and they were there to commit crimes. I doubt Boushie intended to murder anyone. I think he had the gun for intimidation but he broke it at the previous farm where he apparently failed to break into another vehicle with it.

Who steals a vehicle from a farm in broad daylight without even ringing the bell to see if anyone is home? Crazy drunk people or worse. I would not go get a gun and come back outside. I would run inside and run for my gun while telling my family to barricade the door and call the cops. But that's me. I'm not a farmer with a gun used to living on an outlying property. If the people had been white I think he still would have believed they were their to steal his property and still would have tried to stop them from leaving and still would have accidently shot one. I think if he had known Boushie had a gun he would have run away not gone up to the SUV or if he believed his family was threatened I think he would have shot Boushie from more of a distance.

Sounds to me like they were pretty drunk so no I would not have been at all surprised if rather than breaking his gun trying to break into a car he had accidently set it off, or set it off while doing that shooting either himself or someone else in the process. Maybe one of his friends. It seems a pretty clear example of misuse of a firearm. I can't imagine how he broke the stock off. My point is that loaded or not the gun Boushie brought a gun with him. He was not out for an innocent swim with his buddy and their girlfriends.

They never should have been invading farms to try to steal at 5 o clock in the afternoon, or at all. Boushie's gun and the fact that the stock was found next to the vehicle at the other farm is evidence that is what they were up to. It is not racist that the Stanleys figured out what the people were there for and just a coincidence that they were right.

Yes. I believe if white people behaved the exact same way the outcome would not have changed. Gerald would still have gone for the gun, he still would have tried to turn off the SUV. The gun would still have gone off. A man would still have died.

Of course no one deserves to die for stealing. If I thought Gerald Stanley shot him deliberately I would agree with you. I don't believe he did. I think guns are very dangerous and mistakes can happen.

From start to finish it was an accident waiting to happen. I don't think Boushie had any intention of killing anyone but I don't think Gerald had any intention of killing anyone either.

There is a racist component to this and it is the fault of white people alone. It is 100% the responsibility of white people to fix the problem and to do so by following the reconcilliation recommendations to the letter and erring on doing more not less.

I regularly and sadly read of seniors dying because they were crossing the street on green and a car or truck turns on them then the driver is in shock and says they didn't see the victim which is likely quite true. But when I was learning to drive I was taught the pedestrian has the right of way and I am not supposed to drive if I can't see what is in front of me. When I cross streets I watch over my shoulder even if I have the walk symbol. If I get hit I am in the right, but dead. The driver didn't kill me on purpose. They weren't being deliberately reckless. Doesn't really matter if I am right if I am also dead. I don't want the driver strung up I want changes made to improve road safety.

Peace needs to be made between farmers and indigenous communities in the area. If there are any mature people on both sides they need to meet along with mediators and young people to find a way to make peace on an individual level.

I'm pretty sure in the case of a white kid the cops wouldn't have barged in on his mother with their guns drawn, and accused her of being drunk as a way of telling her her son had been shot dead.

In Montreal if a white man had a gun that had broken in the commission of a previous crime then been killed yes the police would show up with a swat team at the man's home and would treat everyone there like potential criminals.

This case in my view is not as clear cut at the Gerald Stanley trial. I feel horrible for the family but listening to the daily reports, the Raymond Cormier case was very problematic - the evidence was very weak. So many of us wanted to see substantive closure on this case and that did not happen. What was clear is that the system totally failed to keep Tina Fontaine safe and alive. I think an inquiry is still in order, especially after some of the evidence that was given. I also wonder why sexual assault of a minor wasn't included in the case. I strongly believe Cormier would have been convicted for that.

Pondering every single thing you said about what you believe happened meets the definition of manslaughter. He recklessly but a mans live in danger and the gun went off and that is manslaughter. The bullshit story about firing the gun until it stopped firing live rounds and then it accidently going off at the very moment he pointed it at a human being would still be manslaughter because if you load a gun and lose count of the bullets and shoot someone it is still manslaughter even if you think the gun was empty. The hanging shot part of the story is to explain that part away. This fucking racist asshole had very good advice on how to beat this charge. He had to have been advised by someone with either legal training or police training because it was a well crafted story designed to mount a vigorous legal defence.

Pondering every single thing you said about what you believe happened meets the definition of manslaughter. He recklessly but a mans live in danger and the gun went off and that is manslaughter. The bullshit story about firing the gun until it stopped firing live rounds and then it accidently going off at the very moment he pointed it at a human being would still be manslaughter because if you load a gun and lose count of the bullets and shoot someone it is still manslaughter even if you think the gun was empty. The hanging shot part of the story is to explain that part away. This fucking racist asshole had very good advice on how to beat this charge. He had to have been advised by someone with either legal training or police training because it was a well crafted story designed to mount a vigorous legal defence.

I think Stanley's explanation about a "hangfire" occurred before it was shown that the fatal bullet had an unusual bulge. I think the bulge in the fatal bullet that was not adequately explained in court supported the defence's case. I don't think the significance of the unusual bulge in the bullet was satisfactorily explained to the jury and this gave the jury the justified option of finding the defendant not-guilty. The bulge in the bullet leaves me thinking that it is possible, within a reasonable doubt, that the gun fired without the defendant firing it. I'm left with two unanswered questions that leave me thinking that Stanley was not-guilty within a reasonable doubt: (1) What are the odds that a bullet with such an unusual bulge would not indicate the possibility of something very unusual occuring? (2) Did the jury hear an adequate explanation for the unusual bulge in the bullet? If the jury did not hear an adequate explanation regarding the bulge, I think they had adequate reason for their verdict.

Yes. I believe if white people behaved the exact same way the outcome would not have changed. Gerald would still have gone for the gun, he still would have tried to turn off the SUV. The gun would still have gone off. A man would still have died.

And the 12-year-old girl from the story I posted about the Melfort rape upthread was coming onto those 3 guys? They really believed that she was the age of legal consent?

You are really out of your depth on this one here, Pondering. Just take a look at some of the comments on the news sites that have talked about this case, if they were even able to allow comments in the first place. People in the Prairies, upon hearing of this case, automatically made the worst assumptions about the "intruders," as you like to call them, simply because of the colour of their skin. That happens in this part of the country. How familiar are you with the Prairies, Pondering? Have you ever visited this area? Many people in this thread, myself included, actually live in this region of the country and have said that racism is a thing out here, and it no doubt has influenced people's perceptions of this case. We as a country have absolutely no moral ground to stand on whatsoever in terms of criticizing the US for its treatment of black people when our treatment of Native people is no better.

It is the blackballing of Indigenous prospective jurors, and bringing forward questionable stories that weren't in the original report, like thinking someone was stuck under the SUV, claiming to not know that the gun was loaded, and that it delayed firing after he pulled the trigger.

One thing that was in that original report - why that rifle was broken. It had been used as a prybar at another property.

Of course lawyers are allowed to use tricks like this that treat the system as a game, rather than an attempt to reach justice. It is yet another example of how flawed and discriminatory our system is.

because it was a well crafted story designed to mount a vigorous legal defence.

I trust that progressives would like to see every defendant able to present a vigorous defense.

If the Crown should win because they cannot, tell me more about this.

It was a vigorous defence, but that defence should still have resulted in a manslaughter conviction, even if there was a hang fire (which is still a far fetched story). That it came to not guilty, paired with the possible race-based jury challenges is pretty fucking ugly, but not at all surprising for this part of the world.

Gofundme campaign for Gerald Stanley now stands at more than 221,000. The original goal was 50,000. I wonder when the Stanley family will say, enough, this is enough for our family. It is possible for them to do this. And the number of donors is almost 3300, many of them from the anonymous or alias families. Well, this country was built on greed, and the destruction of the land and water belonging to indigenous people. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Well, I am editing this to add that the Colten Boushie family gofundme campaign is at 185,000. It's been going on for five months. I was a little hasty with my words about the Sheldon family. I am sorry for that. It is just that this verdict and its aftermath has angered me so much. The Boushie campaign was started by Indigenous Joint Action Coalition (IJAC) student group at the University of Saskatchewan. It is called Justice for Colten Boushie.

Pondering every single thing you said about what you believe happened meets the definition of manslaughter. He recklessly but a mans live in danger and the gun went off and that is manslaughter. The bullshit story about firing the gun until it stopped firing live rounds and then it accidently going off at the very moment he pointed it at a human being would still be manslaughter because if you load a gun and lose count of the bullets and shoot someone it is still manslaughter even if you think the gun was empty. The hanging shot part of the story is to explain that part away. This fucking racist asshole had very good advice on how to beat this charge. He had to have been advised by someone with either legal training or police training because it was a well crafted story designed to mount a vigorous legal defence.

I would go for a manslaughter charge then. I also wondered why there were no charges for attacking the vehicle. Everything seems to have happened quickly so I am not that certain of where everyone was as the events unfolded but where did the hammer come from? Why did the son hit the windshield with it? The father said he kicked the taillight because he thought the truck was going to hit his son. Had the windshield not been broken he wouldn't have hit the other car so no actual damage would have occured. It seems like they were trying to leave. I would edit and write more but I have to go.